If you are referring to the US constitution, I would say that an amendment of this kind would violate the purpose of the American federal design. Social matters such as these are intended to be decided by the states, not the federal govt. If one should want to live in a state that allows gay marriage then they should be allowed to, and conversely if they do not then they should reserve that right as well. If we allow the federal govt. to dictate matter such as gay marriage, drug legality, environmental law, healthcare etc. than we loose our ability to live in a way that best suits our needs. The American federal design was built to ensure that we as members of our respective states should be allowed to live in whatever manner works best for our state. As the late Ronald Reagan said it is the right to "vote with our feet".

With respect to what is good policy, generally and historically speaking, the states have tended to homogenize their policy over time such that what works best is what each state tends to adopt. Bearing that in mind, it stands to reason that within a few decades the gay marriage issue will sort itself out at the state level if we give it the time to do so.

My personal opinion of gay marriage is that homosexuals should be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals. This means the right to civil union, not marriage. I do not believe the state has the power to define or grant marriage to couples of either orientation. Marriage is a religious and personal definition the likes of which the state does not have the authority to confirm or deny. The only thing the law should do in this matter is ensure equal protection.

I'll end this with the citing of the tenth amendment;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I believe strongly in preserving the original purpose of our federal system and consider myself a civil libertarian.

I disagree with your statement pacifiedbyknowledge. We should not have to have an amendment as it is already in our constitution! The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means that we should be allowed to express ourselves as we see fit, and an obvious form of expression is the expression of love in marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone should be treated equally except homosexuals. Every single person has the right to be treated equal no matter who they are. Unlike politicians, I actually mean this.

"My personal opinion of gay marriage is that homosexuals should be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals." You say this but than contradict yourself in a way. I realize you than go on to say that the state should not control marriage because it is a "religious and personal definition" but I disagree with that. Marriage does not have to incorporate any religion into it. Any person of sexual orientation should be allowed to marry whoever they want to. Why stop at civil unions which are hardly comparable when looking at all the rights and such granted by marriage?

The federal government should definitely control the legality of drugs and control environmental laws (to an extent). Just like the alcohol prohibition, the drug prohibition will fail. I am not advocating the use of illegal drugs but I am saying they should not be illegal. Most are not truly dangerous anyway, some like DMT, are found throughout nature and are a great spiritual tool. People should be allowed to ingest whatever they want, if it kills them than that is there fault.

I am not a fan of this country, most things about its culture and politics disgust me. I love the bill of rights though, now if they were actually fully allowed it would be even better. Gay marriage should not exist, it should just be called marriage. "A formal union of two people recognized by the law" is my simple definition of the word marriage.

I disagree with your statement pacifiedbyknowledge. We should not have to have an amendment as it is already in our constitution! The first amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This means that we should be allowed to express ourselves as we see fit, and an obvious form of expression is the expression of love in marriage. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone should be treated equally except homosexuals. Every single person has the right to be treated equal no matter who they are. Unlike politicians, I actually mean this.

"My personal opinion of gay marriage is that homosexuals should be given the same legal rights as heterosexuals." You say this but than contradict yourself in a way. I realize you than go on to say that the state should not control marriage because it is a "religious and personal definition" but I disagree with that. Marriage does not have to incorporate any religion into it. Any person of sexual orientation should be allowed to marry whoever they want to. Why stop at civil unions which are hardly comparable when looking at all the rights and such granted by marriage?

The federal government should definitely control the legality of drugs and control environmental laws (to an extent). Just like the alcohol prohibition, the drug prohibition will fail. I am not advocating the use of illegal drugs but I am saying they should not be illegal. Most are not truly dangerous anyway, some like DMT, are found throughout nature and are a great spiritual tool. People should be allowed to ingest whatever they want, if it kills them than that is there fault.

I am not a fan of this country, most things about its culture and politics disgust me. I love the bill of rights though, now if they were actually fully allowed it would be even better. Gay marriage should not exist, it should just be called marriage. "A formal union of two people recognized by the law" is my simple definition of the word marriage.

I make no normative claims regarding homosexuals or what constitutes a marriage. I mean quite simply that the government has no right to interfere with these decisions. If I read you correctly, you misunderstand my post. I want as little gov. control as possible and I fully support first amendment rights, and the equal protections guaranteed to each citizen under amendment 14. As such i reject completely the concept that the government should have the ability to draw a distinction between any of its citizens.

Now when I say I reject the concept tat the federal govt. should be allowed to make any judgement on matters such as drug use, it does not mean that I either condemn or endorse the activity, it means that I do not recognize constitutionally the federal govt.'s authority to make any such legislation. Those matter's are reserved for the states to decide. What ever their respective decisions are, I shall respect and accept them as legitimate.

It is important to understand the concept that each american state is a State, and that the federal government is the body that exists only as an extension of the collective state's consent. Thus the federal government has no authority to rule on such matters as any of the issues mentioned above. The federal government exists only to meet and fulfill the tasks listed and specified under the constitution.

On the issue of the nature of marriage and civil union, I define civil union as granting all rights and privileges associated with marriage. Otherwise, we would violate equal protection. But marriage is not about these legal rights and terms, it is about the vows one makes to their partner and to their god. Thus for the government to make any ruling on the definition of marriage, they would be in violation of amendment 1.

You may define a civil union as such but it really is not. But what if the people being married were atheists? Anyway, I did fully understand your post. I recognized the fact that you think (federal wise anyway) that "the government is best which governs less". I just don't really agree with that. Not that I want government very involved in my life but I think it needs to be present for major issues like the ones we are discussing. I don't really agree with that statement about the federal government's existence. I do sort of agree with it but not quite. As in, it may have originally been thus but now is a strong and present entity and can not be ignored or shrunk. I know it sounds like it, but I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. So, sorry for sounding as such.

I do not believe it should be an amendment. The Constitution should only be amended to change the workings of government, and it should not deal with social policy. As a matter of fact, the only amendment to deal strictly with social policy (18th/prohibition) was eventually repealed. If we start amending the Constitution for "trivial" things such as that, we'd have a very cluttered Constitution, much like California's. It would also be much easier to just amend the United States Code, rather than going through the laborious process of amending the Constitution.

On a personal note, I think the process of legalizing gay marriage is already biased towards leaving that process to the states. If there were to ever be a federal mandate legalizing it, I do not believe it would be done until a large majority (40+) states had already done it.

As a general rule, when I see an amendment whose opposition consists almost entirely of the religious, I view it as an opportunity to remind my religious neighbors that I do not choose to be bound by their scriptures or by interpretations thereof. If they wish to define a word in a more exclusive fashion, they are free to apply that more-exclusive definition to themselves. I promise that I will never fault a gay Christian for refusing marriage.

When it comes to civil rights issues such as this, I enjoy playing little mind games with myself. For instance: If a large, representative subset of American society was suddenly transported to an unclaimed land mass and forced to reinvent government, would they--could they--create laws with such a religious slant, or would they favor equality right from the get-go? I'd like to think it would be the latter.

I suspect that the reason many religious people are uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage is simply because it's a change to something established that they are involved with. Ditch the establishments and their propaganda, and we'd have a (brief) age of equality. Social establishments (of all kinds) are like schools of fish, moving together, seldom wondering why, and being big and threatening though any given individual would claim to be peace-loving and well-meaning.

Time to give a big finger to those establishments and move to a place that truly is better for everyone.

You may define a civil union as such but it really is not. But what if the people being married were atheists? Anyway, I did fully understand your post. I recognized the fact that you think (federal wise anyway) that "the government is best which governs less". I just don't really agree with that. Not that I want government very involved in my life but I think it needs to be present for major issues like the ones we are discussing. I don't really agree with that statement about the federal government's existence. I do sort of agree with it but not quite. As in, it may have originally been thus but now is a strong and present entity and can not be ignored or shrunk. I know it sounds like it, but I'm not trying to argue with you or anything. So, sorry for sounding as such.

True, but we are arguing, just in an academic way, and in a friendly sense. Regarding the new points you have posed;

For the type of legal specifications of a marriage that I define, I would designate it as civil union. Whether or not this is the current legal definition of marriage, is not relevant to my argument because I am arguing from an admittedly hypothetical ideal state.

Concerning my stance on the role of the federal govt. I acknowledge that it has grown well beyond its original purpose and design. Rather than merely accepting this fact, I want to fight the trend and see a reduction in the size of the federal govt. and to see a slow and prudent return to the original design of the federal govt.

If that statement would cause one to wonder about the repercussions of this reduction, and the loss of many federal programs or our roll on the international level. I would happily see these federal programs agencies and influence go away. In regards to our international roll, our dominance on the international stage is the primary reason for the federal govt.'s growth. As such I would also like to see a purely defensive military and almost no interaction with other nations, with the exception of trade. But this topic is moving away from our original discussion so I digress...